Earlier this month, three Auburn students were gunned down at an off-campus pool party by Desmonte Leonard, a man who had already been convicted of carrying a firearm without a permit in 2008.
In light of the saddening Auburn killings and the recent rash of high profile incidents involving gun violence, one has to wonder what we’re doing wrong as a society to allow such tragic events to occur on such a consistent basis. Logically speaking, it seems that the common denominator that has precipitated this outbreak of violence has been loose gun control laws. However, acknowledging and understanding this elephant in the room has proven to be a lot trickier than anticipated.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizens “the right to keep and bear arms,” a statement that has been open to much interpretation over the years. What isn’t in dispute is the fact that the founding fathers couldn’t predict the future. It’s questionable whether they would have included such a provision had they been penning the document in 2012.
What would stricter gun laws look like? Arguably, regrettable tragedies like the recent Auburn shootings or the Virginia Tech massacre of 2007 could be avoided. Proponents of stricter gun laws argue that acquiring a gun should be more like applying to college than buying groceries. And they are probably right.
The main problem with this widely held hypothesis is that criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. The harder it becomes to legally acquire a gun, the more they will turn to the black market to meet their needs. The important distinction here, however, is that law abiding citizens are the group that is logically less likely to circumvent the law and utilize the black market; they will simply have to pass up gun ownership altogether.
I am certainly not suggesting that all proponents of stricter gun control policies favor an outright ban on possessing any and all firearms. The realities of American life dictate that certain groups – like farmers – will always need lawful access to guns. Many Americans simply want a gun in their house for peace of mind, if not personal protection. Surely no one wants to deny these types of people their constitutional “right to bear arms.”
With respect to gun ownership, our modern society is reminiscent of the ‘MAD’ (mutually assured destruction) policies that likely allowed the world to avoid nuclear conflict during the Cold War years. Scholars have argued that since the arms stockpiles became so frighteningly large on either side, neither the Americans nor the Soviets wanted to make the first strike. Nuclear holocaust was avoided, thanks to mutual deterrence.
If the U.S. were to enact stricter gun laws today, it would effectively remove one side of that “mutual assurance” for the reasons cited above. These frightening – and perhaps counterintuitive – consequences of gun control legislation have been made strikingly clear recently in Great Britain. In 1997, British Parliament passed the most stringent gun laws to date by banning all handguns. What happened next is instructive: in the four years following the law’s enactment, the rate of violent crime more than doubled.
The British gun control experiment should prove one thing to American lawmakers: the idea that stricter gun laws lead to less violent crime is simply a myth. Gun ownership appears to be one of those strange social issues where legislating against it could actually exacerbate the original problem (similar to prostitution or the war on drugs). History has proven that allowing more guns in the “right” hands can often halt crime. Conversely, legislating fewer guns into the “wrong” hands could very well catalyze an unprecedented explosion of violent crime in this country. Therefore, while the current situation isn’t ideal, it may prove to be our best alternative. Perhaps the real question Americans should be asking is if less stringent gun control laws would actually make the country safer. Until then, it appears we’ll have to bank on our mutually assured destruction.
Henry Downes is a sophomore majoring in economics.
